Covid models

The Twitterati Wake Up To The Fact That Covid Models Are Basically Crap, i.e. They’re Policy-Based Evidence Making

Well, knock me down with a feather. It’s not like some of us didn’t realise this from the word go, when Imperial College and the serial epidemiological modelling failure Professor Pantsdown Ferguson churned out their extremely suspect ‘projections’ (which ‘informed’ government lockdown policy), using some ancient indecipherable computing code which even the experts could not analyse or interpret. So, 21 months later, when the Johnson regime is threatening once again to ruin Christmas and New Year for everybody based on equally dodgy ‘worst case scenario’ projections of infections, deaths and hospitalisations from Omicron, the great and the good have finally twigged and they’re like ‘Oh my God! If only we’d known about this earlier’. Sure.

The ‘news’ is all over twitter today. Particularly irritating that politicians appear to have only just realised what’s been going on, as a result of Fraser Nelson of the Spectator finally asking the right questions and actually getting honest answers:

Some of us had a head start admittedly, from witnessing for years the shenanigans of the catastrophic climate change modellers at the Met Office and elsewhere, who equally just adore using worst case scenario projections to [in]form policy. Or rather, should I say, justify policy already formed. You see, all politicians need in order to justify sweeping changes to our entire way of life is for ‘scientists’ to come up with some really scary projections of what might plausibly happen if we don’t implement radical ‘solutions’ right now – but preferably the week before last. Then they simply invoke the Precautionary Principle: ‘we must plan for the worst, even if it seems unlikely to happen’.

With climate change modelling, what they did is develop very complex coupled ocean and atmosphere circulation models, hard-wired with the ‘science’ of greenhouse gas radiative forcing. These models spewed forth ’emergent’ values of ‘climate sensitivity’ (i.e. the amount by which the earth would warm for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) which varied anywhere between 1.5C and 6C, meaning that projections of future climate change are fraught with uncertainty. So what did they do? They preferentially focussed on those models which tended to have higher climate sensitivities in order to produce studies outlining scary climate change scenarios which rags like the Guardian and New York Times have picked up on for years and propagandised as ‘settled science’ absent any caveats to their gullible readership.

Not only that, but climate models also rely upon input in order to produce an output (e.g. how warm it will be in 2100 and how much ice will have melted, contributing to an increase in sea level etc.). This input consists of estimates of future man-made greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn depends upon global economic growth, energy use (the actual amount, plus from what source), plus a whole host of socio-economic variables. It’s not an exact science, but climate ‘scientists’ have been inordinately fond of using a very unrealistic high end emissions scenario called RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) to plug into their already biased computer models in order to produce some very scary climate change Thermageddons which the media have obligingly disseminated as ‘fact’.

Thus the ‘climate crisis’ was born, in fact not long after little Greta, the climate activist pixie, was also born, who, after bunking off classes, then began to admonish us all for destroying the planet with climate change hell-fire and ruining her future. Bummer, I’m sure you will agree. How dare we.

I wrote about the similarities between catastrophic climate modelling and Covid modelling way back in April 2020.

They got it wrong the second time because they relied upon an epidemiological model (adapted from an old ‘flu model) which predicted 510,000 deaths from a virus which we knew virtually nothing about. Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, London said ‘DO SOMETHING OR PEOPLE WILL DIE!’ So the government did something and people still died, not in their hundreds of thousands, but, it would seem, in numbers probably irrespective of a lockdown which was initiated too late in the day and was nowhere near strict enough to have a measurable effect on what is probably an exceptionally contagious virus. American IMHE modellers got it wrong a third time, predicting loads more deaths in the UK and the US, even in lockdown, than actually occurred.

Back then I actually believed the CCP myth that closing down society totally for a short period might conceivably stop the spread of a contagious virus, or at least buy time to prepare. I was wrong of course, but pleased to admit that I soon changed my mind when the facts about useless, destructive lockdowns became glaringly apparent. Others did not, sadly. The government gained initial compliance through fear and they’re still using the same tactic nearly two years later, but many people are not buying it this time around.

People are still scared by Covid-19; they’re scared of dying, naturally, not in many years’ time because of bad weather, but next week, due to some horrible illness which probably escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. The government and the Medicine Men currently in control of control of government decision-making, use that fear to control us and to convince us of the legitimacy of their policy.

I wrote again, in July 2020, about the similarities between climate models and epidemiological models and, as you can see from many of the comments, was roundly criticised for my observations, by people who really should have known better. Perhaps they do now.

It is an article of faith: climate change is dangerous. Dare to criticise that view and, as a non scientist, you will be labelled a ‘climate denier’ and a crank. As a scientist, you will also be called a denier and a crank, as well as being ex-communicated, ostracised, hounded, disciplined, humiliated, vilified, cancelled, forced out of your job even. Dare to question the validity of epidemiological models which portray Covid-19 as a killer pandemic which, without lockdown, will cut through the populace like a knife, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and overwhelming health services and you are similarly frowned upon by the prevailing epidemiological oligarchy.

Update: 20th December, 2021

Tony Heller has made a good video explaining the exact same methods used by climate and Covid modellers.